MONTHLY JUDGEMENTS MAGAZINE JUNE

✅ Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan, 2025

• The Court reinforced that maintenance is not just subsistence but must preserve dignity and lifestyle parity.

• It acknowledged inflationary pressures, financial disclosures, and the importance of economic independence for a separated spouse.

• The ruling highlights the balance between financial capability of the husband and the future security of the wife.

• It reflects a progressive interpretation of spousal support and reinforces the principle that divorced spouses should not face financial destitution.

---

✅  Thangavel v. The State, 2025

• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's refusal to discharge the Appellant.

• The Court held that no normal person could have foreseen that a scolding—especially one based on a complaint—would lead to such a tragic outcome.

• It ruled that the absence of mens rea was fatal to the prosecution's case.

• The Court allowed the appeal and discharged the Appellant from prosecution.

---

✅ M/s Celestium Financial v. A Gnanasekaran, 2025

• The definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC is interpreted broadly, encompassing anyone who has suffered harm or injury due to the crime, including cheque dishonour cases.

• The proviso to Section 372 CrPC, inserted in 2009, was intended to empower victims and remove procedural hurdles in accessing justice.

• Unlike Section 378(4) which requires leave of the court for appeals against acquittals by complainants, the proviso creates a separate pathway for victims, free from such conditions.

• The Parliament deliberately chose not to amend Section 378 to cover victims under the same umbrella as complainants, thereby indicating a legislative intent to provide greater rights to victims.

• In cases under Section 138 NI Act, which are private complaints, the State’s involvement is minimal. Hence, the victim-complainant is central to seeking redress and must be given direct appellate rights.

• The Court aligned the victim’s right to appeal with the accused’s right to appeal under Section 374 CrPC, establishing equality in appellate rights.

---

✅ MA v. Superintendent of Police, 2025

• The Court took a progressive view of family structures, extending legal recognition beyond heteronormative models.

• The judgment emphasized the evolution of legal understanding post-NALSA and Navtej Singh Johar, incorporating international human rights norms like the Yogyakarta Principles.

• The judges expressed discomfort with the term “queer”, critiquing its linguistic implications and advocating for normalization of non-heterosexual identities.

• The ruling strengthens the jurisprudence on bodily autonomy, adult choice, and civil unions, and further underlines the role of state accountability.

• It also points to a systemic gap in the police’s sensitivity and responsiveness in handling LGBTQIA+ cases.

---

✅ State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere v. C B Nagaraj, 2025

• The judgment reiterates the settled principle of law from earlier cases like B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) that demand is essential to sustain conviction under PC Act.

• The burden of rebuttal under Section 20 does not arise unless demand is first proved beyond doubt by the prosecution.

• The Court's careful scrutiny of evidentiary gaps, especially regarding the complainant’s credibility, shows its commitment to upholding due process in criminal prosecution.

• The Court also restated the doctrine of chain completeness: demand → acceptance → recovery must all be proved.

• It serves as a guiding precedent that mere possession of marked currency is not enough for conviction.

---

✅ Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., 2025

• The Court reiterated and applied the principles laid down in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) regarding the mandatory nature of Article 22(1).

• It clarified the legal position on two types of arrests:

  • Warrant arrest → warrant itself serves as grounds.

  • Warrantless arrest → separate and specific communication required.

• The judgment upholds judicial warrants as prima facie proof of legal compliance with constitutional safeguards.

• It also places the burden of proof on police authorities to demonstrate compliance with Article 22(1) if challenged. 

• Some of the key directions are implicated in this judgment are as follows:
  a) Informing the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional safeguard, not a formality.
  b) The right to liberty under Article 21 is curtailed upon arrest, so reasons must be clear and timely.
  c) The mode of communication must be meaningful and comprehensible.
  d) In warrantless arrests, failure to inform the grounds of arrest vitiates the arrest.
  e) Diary entries must clearly show grounds of arrest, if relied upon to prove communication.
  f) Burden of proving compliance with Article 22(1) lies on the State/police.
  g) Family members should also be informed to ensure effective exercise of rights.
  h) Once an arrest is held to be vitiated, the person cannot remain in custody even for a second.

---

✅ JKB v. KSB, 2025

• The Court reinforced that compensation under Section 22 of DV Act must be meaningful and proportional to the extent of abuse and the economic status of the parties.

• It rejected the notion that a woman must recall exact dates of domestic violence, recognizing the private nature of such abuse.

• The Court emphasized that capacity to earn does not disqualify a victim of domestic violence from claiming maintenance.

• The ruling advances gender justice and financial empowerment for survivors, ensuring relief is not merely symbolic.

---

 

✅ Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Biscuit Division) & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025

• The Supreme Court ruled that the right to shut down a business is part of Article 19(1)(g), though subject to reasonable restrictions.

• Held that HSML's application was valid and complete as of August 28, 2019, triggering the statutory 60-day deemed closure period, which expired in October 2019.

• Found that the Deputy Secretary lacked jurisdiction, as only the appropriate Government (i.e., Minister) could consider such applications.

• The Minister’s failure to act or apply independent judgment amounted to a procedural defect, invalidating the state’s objections.

---

✅ X Vs. X, 2025

• The ruling reinforces the procedural safeguards under CrPC, ensuring that appellate powers are not misused to the prejudice of the accused.

• By distinguishing revisional powers from appellate jurisdiction, the Court clarified that suo motu revisions are impermissible where the entitled parties have chosen not to act.

• The Court’s reliance on Section 401(4) CrPC makes it clear that judicial restraint must be maintained when the State or victim chooses not to seek enhancement.

• The judgment affirms natural justice and prevents backdoor punishment enhancements, thereby protecting the procedural rights of the accused.

---

✅ S.C. Garg vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2025

• The Court upheld the doctrine of finality and emphasized that a litigant cannot be prosecuted twice for substantially the same cause.

• It distinguished between preliminary or withdrawn criminal proceedings, where res judicata may not apply, and full trials with findings, where it does.

• Citing precedents like Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab and Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan, the Court reinforced the idea that criminal courts must prevent duplicative prosecutions.

• The judgment reflects a strong stance against forum shopping and misuse of criminal process after an adverse verdict in another proceeding.

---

✅ Kanchhu vs. Prakash Chand & Ors., 2025

• The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of vigilance and diligence in defending suits. Respondents’ repeated adjournments, failure to explain their absence adequately, and unsubstantiated illness claims justified setting them ex parte.

• The Court held that the High Court inappropriately exercised appellate powers under Article 227, effectively reviewing factual and substantive merits without following the correct procedural safeguards.

• The Court clarified the limitations on defendants set ex parte, explaining that they lose the right to lead evidence but can cross-examine plaintiff witnesses or raise pure legal issues.

• The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for ignoring the trial and appellate court’s detailed findings and legal principles, thus wrongly reviving a dispute decided decades ago.

• It was noted that blaming lawyers for delay or miscommunication does not automatically justify condonation of delay.

• The decision reaffirmed the finality of ex parte decrees unless there is a proper showing of sufficient cause under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.

---

✅ State of Rajasthan v. Hanuman, 2025

• It emphasizes the principle that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain to convict.

• It clarifies that forensic evidence alone, such as blood group matching, cannot sustain conviction without corroboration.

• It reinforces the high standard of proof in criminal cases to avoid wrongful convictions.

• It affirms that motive alone, especially if vague, cannot establish guilt.

• It aligns with prior precedent from Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024).

---

✅ Viswanathan Krishna Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025

• The judgment is a landmark in affirming gender justice and inclusivity under Indian criminal law.

• It recognizes that transgender individuals have the constitutional right to dignity, equality, and protection, just like cisgender individuals.

• The Court cited the NALSA v. Union of India decision, which recognized transgender rights, and emphasized self-identification of gender as a legal right.

• The reference to the Madras High Court’s view that “bride” includes transgender women under the Hindu Marriage Act was critical.

• This ruling contributes to progressive jurisprudence but also stresses the need for substantiated evidence in criminal complaints.

---

✅ Sulthan Said Ibrahim v. Prakasan & Ors., 2025

• The Court clarified that res judicata is not confined to multiple suits but also applies within the same case at different stages.

• This ruling discourages litigation abuse, where parties try to raise objections in piecemeal to delay proceedings.

• By reinforcing constructive res judicata (Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC), the judgment strengthens the principles of finality and judicial efficiency.

• The Court also reaffirmed the sanctity of procedural compliance during legal heir impleadment under Order XXII.

---

✅ Head Constable Raj Kumar & Others v. State of Punjab & Another, 2025

• The Court applied the principle that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not required when the alleged act has no nexus with official duty.

• Referenced the precedent of Gauri Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar (2000) 5 SCC 15, emphasizing that:

  • Even if official arms were used, it doesn’t convert illegal acts into lawful duty.

  • Actions intended to thwart justice, such as removal of registration plates, fall outside protection.

• The ruling upholds accountability of police officers and reinforces that public office does not provide immunity for criminal actions.

• This judgment is significant for handling cases involving fake encounters, police excess, and misuse of official power.

---

✅ Amlesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar, 2025

• The Reaffirmed the Selvi (2010) precedent, protecting individuals against self-incrimination and unlawful bodily intrusion.

• It Clarified that bail hearings must focus on standard criteria like nature of the offence, custody period, evidence prima facie, and not delve into complex investigative measures.

• The Court disapproved of High Courts bypassing trial safeguards by ordering narco-tests as bail conditions or investigation methods.

• Highlighted the unreliability of narco-analysis, reinforcing that its evidentiary value is limited.

• Distinguished between investigative usefulness and admissibility in court, ensuring accused rights remain protected during the trial.

---

✅ Abhishek Singh v. Ajay Kumar & Ors., 2025

• The judgment reaffirms the principle of non-interference at the FIR stage when a prima facie case is made out.

• The Supreme Court cautioned against drawing conclusions on mens rea (intention) or malafide without a full trial process.

• It also underscored the importance of independent verification when replacing a valuer or altering asset classification.

• The Court maintained that even if a bank follows internal policy, its actions are still subject to judicial scrutiny if criminality is alleged.

• The loan repayment and procedural lapses by the bank, such as not initiating formal auction proceedings, further complicated the case, justifying judicial intervention.